Civil liberties verses public safety

The New Hampshire Department of Safety has ordered police to stop running background checks before returning confiscated firearms to owners. The National Instant Criminal Background Check system is supposed to be used only by federally licensed gun manufacturers, dealers, and importers, to research buyers before selling them firearms.

That's all well and good. However, if a citizen has a run in with police and that citizen is in possession of a firearm, it is in the public's best interest to make sure that that citizen has not done anything since the acquisition of that firearm to possibly revoke the privilege of firearm ownership.

While this may seem like a violation of Civil Liberties, let's consider a different scenario. A police officer pulls you over for speeding. He runs a routine check on your vehicle and on your driving record. He finds out that you have had your licensed revoked or suspended. Therefore you are not allowed to drive your car away from the scene.

THE NICS database tracks whether persons have any of the following disqualifications for having a firearm license according to the FBI NICS index:

1) Persons who are aliens and are illegally or unlawfully in the United States
2) Persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship
3) Persons who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution
4) Persons who have been discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
5) Persons who are unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance
6) Persons who are federally disqualified when a record is not already included in the NCIC or the III.

Items in bold above are things that can change after you initially get a license for a firearm.

Considering how many factors can change, why on Earth would it be incorrect to check the database for someone who has a firearm who has recently garnered the attention of law enforcement?

Considering how many disturbed individuals go on shooting sprees every year, I think it ought to actually BE a requirement to check the database.

Taxachusetts needs to be stopped

Everyone is hurting including state and local governments. I get it. However, Massachusetts is going too far in their quest to dig up additional revenue.

Town Fair Tire is a CONNECTICUTT based company which operates in several New England states. Massachusetts is trying to make Town Fair Tire Centers collect MASSACHUSETTS state sales tax from Massachusetts residents who buy tires outside of Massachusetts.


Short version of the story

Longer version of the story

Town Fair Tire has a pretty good case. Massachusetts' order violates Federal Interstate Commerce code. I am surprised that New Hampshire is not jumping in on this suit (then again NH would have to be willing to spend a nickel to get involved).

Should Massachusetts win its ploy with Town Fair Tire, every state could force businesses to ascertain the legal residence of its customers in order to charge those customers appropriate home sales tax, in ADDITION to any local sales tax being charged.

Scenario: You live in Maryland. You drive into Philadelphia for the weekend. You notice a great deal on a stereo in a department store while there. The clerk at the counter is required to see your driver's license (or other valid photo ID) so they can collect both the Pennsylvania sales tax and the Maryland sales tax. So ... how likely are you to 'shop' while traveling?

In addition, do we really want to have to show identification every time we make a purchase? Do you smell Big Brother? I certainly do.

I will be following this case closely. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Freedom to fork over all electronic records to the NSA

With every passing week the Bush Administration turns our country into a more overt police state. A new Senate bill will retroactively protect e-mail providers, search engines, Internet service providers and instant-messaging services from lawsuits brought by citizens whose privacy was violated when such organizations turned over electronic records to the NSA.

Here is the REALLY laughable aspect of this bill:

"Private companies who received legal assurances from the highest levels of government should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security," Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), the Intelligence Committee chairman and the bill's primary Democratic sponsor, said in a statement. "The onus is on the administration, not the companies, to ensure that the request is on strong legal footing, and if it is not, it is the administration that should be held accountable."

First off, West Virginians: Ditch this moron! (Some Democrat, huh? I thought those guys were supportive of Civil Liberties and Due Process. My mistake!)

Secondly, the current administration does not give a rat's butt about the legal footing of its actions and has yet to be seriously challenged on the legality of any of its actions.

Give me a break!